Jharkhand High Court
Imtiyaj Ansari vs The State Of Jharkhand on 14 October, 2024
Author: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
Bench: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI
----
Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No.872 of 2019
----
1.Imtiyaj Ansari, aged about 40 years son of Farimjan Mian
2.Alijan Mian, aged about 53 years, son of Rasul Mian
3.Israil Mian @ Israil Ansari, aged about 41 years son of Tipan Mian
4.Ishaque Mian, aged about 61 years son of Baso Mian
5.Farimjan Mian @ Farimjan Ansari aged about 68 years, son of Abdul
Mian
6.Ghani Mian, aged about 61 years, son of Huro Mian
7.Baksu Mian, aged about 45 years son of Nur Mian
8.Jakir Mian @ Jakir Ansari aged about 34 years son of Gujar Mian
All are resident of Goro, PO and PS Jamua (Nodiha- OP) District
Giridih, Jharkhand .... Appellants
-- Versus --
1.The State of Jharkhand
2.Chamtu Paswan, aged about 42 years, son of late Badri Paswan,
resident of Village Goro, PO and PS Jamua (Nodiha O.P.), District Giridih
.... Respondents
----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
---
For the Appellant(s) :- Mr. Rahul Kumar, Advocate
For the State :- Mr. Sanjay Kumar Srivastava, Advocate
For the Complainant :- Mr. P.C. Sinha, Advocate
----
14/14.10.2024 Heard the learned counsel for the appellants, learned counsel
for the respondent State as well as the learned counsel for the complainant.
2. This appeal has been preferred against the order dated
11.07.2019 passed in A.B.P. No.453 of 2019 passed by learned Additional
Sessions Judge-I, Giridih whereby anticipatory bail petition filed by the
appellants in connection with SC/ST (Complaint) Case No.58 of 2018 for the
offence under sections 147, 149, 323, 325, 341, 342, 379, 427, 295-A of IPC
and section 3/4 of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 has been
rejected, pending in the court of learned Special Judge, Giridih.
3. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that there is land
dispute between the parties and out of retaliation the present complaint has
been filed falsely against the appellants. He submits that the appellants have
earlier filed the complaint before the concerned police station on 21.05.2018
contained in Annexur-3. He submits that the learned court has rejected the
anticipatory bail petition on the ground that it is not maintainable. He
submits that there is land dispute between the parties and maliciously the
present complaint has been filed.
4. Learned counsel for the respondent State as well as
complainant jointly opposed the prayer on the ground that allegations are
there and even the complainant was slapped by the appellants. They submit
that ingredients under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 are
made out and the learned appellate court has rightly passed the order.
5. Looking to the contents of the compliant petition, it transpires
that there is land dispute between the parties with regard to use of the road
and if such a situation is there, the case of the appellants is covered in view
of the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Hitesh Verma v. State of Uttarakhand, reported in (2020) 10 SCC
710. If a prima-facie case is not made out under the SC/ST (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, 1989, the anticipatory bail can be maintained, as has been
held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shajan Skaria v. State
of Kerala, (2024) INSC 625, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the
appellants, and as such, the appellants, above named, are hereby directed
to surrender before the learned court concerned within three weeks from
today, and in the event of their surrender/arrest, the appellants, above
named, shall be released on bail, on furnishing bail bond of Rs.25,000/-
(Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) each, with two sureties of the like amount
each, to the satisfaction of learned Special Judge, Giridih in connection with
SC/ST (Complaint) Case No.58 of 2018, subject to the conditions that
appellants shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or
undue influence to the prosecution witnesses and the appellants shall appear
before the trial court on each and every date given to them by the said
learned court till the disposal of the trial.
6. This appeal is allowed and disposed of, and the impugned order
dated 11.07.2019 passed in A.B.P. No.453 of 2019 passed by learned
Additional Sessions Judge-I, Giridih is hereby set-aside.
7. Pending petition, if any, also stands disposed of accordingly.
( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)
SI/
